I've heard catechism classes, among other learning moments in congregations, centered on the subject, and within all three denominations I've known with a degree of intimacy (LCMS, WELS, and EFree). I've heard popular podcasts on the subject. I've heard profs discuss it from undergrad to grad. I've heard people who participate in the education of Christians discuss it along with people training to be future pastors. And by "it" I mean the topic of origins, ID, and YEC. Often with a litmus test for orthodoxy being one's agreement with people like Ken Hamm and writers from the DI and AIG (among others). And I open a paper from time to time (whether virtually or tangibly) and hear plenty in the science news about (specifically) Christians doing odd things, like trying to get ID proposed in schools.
Same. But that is hardly a vaccine to the topic. It's a common experience that people in general enjoy holding stalwart opinions about things they've spent little time investigating. (E.g., numerous people with no expertise in the sciences/theology/philosophy who make claims thereof.)
ID is to me, and others of my ilk, something which ought to be subjected to the traditional polemics of theology when it is employed by Christians - especially academic Christians - for Christian/theological purposes (and to the polemics of the natural sciences at all times). In part because theology is never isolated to ivory towers (or specially made tables, in the case of Aquinas). At least proper theology isn't. Theology, if it is proper theology, always seeks to serve the worship and practice of the church at large. But even poor theology manages its way into the laity and does its best to poison the proclamation. Since we're dealing with eternities when it comes to the proclamation, this topic must be broached with seriousness, rigor, and at least a degree of winsomeness.
That's fair. Civility ought never to be in want. Nevertheless, even hostility may have some valid origin which should likewise be investigated in a grad seminar. What do you teach?
As to Luther and the Wittenberg theologians (speaking generally of the majesteria/the interaction between philosophy and theology), Bayer astutely notes:
Luther persistently refuses to teach that there is a double truth. He denies that “the same proposition can be true in philosophy and false in Christian theology, and vice versa.” Yet he rejects the speculation that everything is one, even if that speculation is grounded in the confession to Christ… The Wittenberg theological faculty consciously opposed the Sorbonne, the stronghold of scholastic theology. In the disputation [Disputation Concerning John 1:14] they argued against the proposition put up by the Paris theologians that “the same thing is true in theology as in philosophy and vice versa.” They mounted the counter-thesis “that the same thing is not true in theology and philosophy. For we know that it is one thing to understand, another to believe. Therefore, philosophy and theology are distinguished. It is the task of philosophy to understand by use of reason; it is the task of theology truly to believe what is above all reason.”
We follow much in the footprints of Ockham and St. Paul, and in contradistinction to Aquinas. That's all I'll say on the matter this year.